8. Pasquill on the
evolution
Introduction
Reconstruction of the species
The construction of life
The construction of death
The construction of consciousness
Error based constructions
Bionics and cybernetics
Through the eyes of the Designer
Let us consider the problem of perfecting the human. Here, various approaches are possible. One can pursue "maintenance engineering", simply represented by medicine. In this case the norm, i.e., the average state of health, represents the model; actions are taken with the goal of enabling anybody to attain such a state.
The range of those actions is slowly expanding. It may even include the installation of genotypically undesigned parameters into the body (like the above mentioned possibility of hibernation). In a fluid way one can proceed to an increasingly more universal prosthetics. And be able to overcome the defenses of the organism, aiming at successful transplantation of organs. All this has already been realized. The first transplantations of kidneys and lungs have already been performed; they are carried out, on a much larger scale, with animals ("reserve" heart). In the US there even exists a society for "replacement organs" which coordinates and supports scientific research on this subject. Hence, one can step by step rebuild the organism, changing it in distinct functions and parameters. This process will probably continue along two different lines, under the pressure of objective necessities - and technological possibilities: as biological changes (the removal of defects, deformities etc. by transplantation) and as prosthetic changes (when the mechanical, "dead" prosthesis represents a better solution for the user than a natural transplant). Prosthetics, on this scale, obviously cannot lead to some kind of "robotization" of the human. This whole stage, which will certainly cover not only the end of the current century, but also the beginning of the next, assumes the acceptance of a fundamental "design scheme" given by Nature. Hence, untouched will remain the guidelines of body, organic, and functional constructions, together with the basic premise of protein as the building material - as well as with its inevitable consequences - aging and death.
Prolongation of life beyond the limit of 100 years statistically (i.e., that such were the average duration of an individual life) - without intervention on the genetic information - seems unreal to me. A lot of wise men have already proclaimed a couple of times that "actually", "in principle" every human could live for 140-160 years, since there are some people which live that long; this argument is comparable to that which states that "actually" each of us might be a Beethoven or a Newton, since they were human as well. Of course they were human, and so are the long-lived Caucasians in the mountains, but this implies nothing for the average population. Longevity is the result of the work of certain genes; if they are spread within the population, it becomes statistically long-lived. Any other program involving more radical changes is certainly not realizable today and during the next century. One can at most think about a program of revolutionary engineering of the organism. In a primitive, naive way, in fact, but it is possible.
First we have to find out what we want.
Similar to the existence of orders of spatial magnitude, from the metagalactic clouds, through galaxies, local stellar systems, planetary systems, planets, their biospheres, living organisms, viruses, molecules, atoms to quanta, there exist orders of temporal magnitude, i.e., different extensions in time. They more or less correspond to the former. The longest time scale is given by the individual existence of galaxies (between 10 and 20 billion years), then there are stars (about 10 billion years), biological evolution as a whole - 4-6 billion years, geological epochs (50-150 million years), the sequoia (6000 years), the human (about 70 years), the mayfly, the bacterium (about 15 minutes), the virus, cis-benzene, the meson (a millionth of a second).
The construction of rational beings with an individual life span comparable to geological epochs seems totally unreal. Either such a person would have to be of planetoidal dimensions - or do without a continuous memory of the events in its past. Obviously this is the field of grotesque SF-type concepts: long-lived beings which have their memories accommodated in gigantic underground "mnemotrons" in the cities and are linked to the reservoirs of their youthful memories 100000 years ago by VHF waves. Therefore the limit to realistic longevity improvement seems to be given by the biological maximum (sequoia, hence about 6000 years). What would be the most important characteristic of this long-lived being? For longevity alone cannot be a goal in itself. It must serve a certain purpose. Undoubtedly nobody, neither today, nor in a hundred thousand years, can predict the future with certainty. A basic feature of the "improved model" should therefore be its auto-evolutionary potential. It should be able to transform itself in a way and in a direction which are desired, with respect to the civilization built by itself.
What, therefore, is possible? Almost everything, possibly with one exception. People could, after discussion, decide some day of the umpteen thousandth year: "Enough - be it as it is now, be it so forever. We will not change, we will not invent, we will not discover any more, since it cannot be better than now, and even if it could, we do not want that."
Although I have presented many not very probable things in
this book, this one seems to be the least probable of them all.
A separate discussion should be devoted to the only known today, purely hypothetical for the time being, project for the reconstruction of man which has been put forward by the scholars. This is no project of universal rebuilding. It is meant to serve a definite goal, the adaptation to the cosmos as an "ecological niche". This is the so called cyborg (an abbreviation for the words "cybernetic organization"). "Cyborgization" consists in removal of the digestive system (except for the liver and maybe parts of the pancreas), by which also jaws, their muscles, and the teeth become dispensable. If the question of speech has to be solved "cosmically" - by continuous use of radio communication - also the mouth will disappear. The cyborg possesses a couple of biological elements, like skeleton, muscles, skin, brain, but this brain consciously controls the hitherto involuntary functions of the body, since at the key positions of the organism there are osmotic pumps, injecting, in case needed, either refreshing, body-activating substances - medicines, hormones, stimulating drugs - or, on the contrary, substances which lower the basal metabolism, or even lead to a state of hibernation. This preparedness for auto-hibernation may considerably increase the chance of survival in the case of accidents or the like.
Blood circulation is designed rather "traditionally",
though the cyborg can work under anaerobic conditions (but obviously
with oxygen reserves in his space suit). The cyborg is not a partly
prostheticised human anymore. He is a partly rebuilt human, with
an artificial digestive-regulative system which allows for adaptation
to diverse cosmic environments. He is, however, not microscopically
reconstructed, i.e., living cells continue to be the building
material of his body, furthermore, of course, the changes to his
organism cannot be passed on to his descendants (they are not
hereditary). The "cyborgization" could probably be supplemented
by biochemical reconstruction. Thus, e.g., independence of the
organism from continuous oxygen supply would be favorable. But
this is already the path to that "biochemical revolution"
which was mentioned earlier. It is known, after all, that one
does not have to look for substances which can store oxygen more
effectively than hemoglobin, in order to do without oxygen supply
for relatively long periods. Whales are able to stay under water
for more than an hour, which is not only a consequence of the
increase of lung volume. They have organic systems specially developed
for that purpose. Hence eventually one could even borrow elements
of the reorganization "from the whale".
We did not say anything about the question whether cyborgization
is desirable or not. We mention it only to demonstrate that the
experts are actually dealing with problems of that kind.
It should be noted, however, that this project would probably
be unrealizable today (not only with respect to medical ethics,
but also to the minute chance of surviving such a massive surgical
intervention and the replacement of such vitally important organs
by various "osmotic pumps"), although it is in principle
rather "conservative".
The main source for criticism is represented not so much by the
set of proposed operations, but by their final result. The cyborg,
contrary to all appearances, is not a more universal human than
the "current model" at all. He is a "cosmic variant",
designed not for all celestial bodies, but rather for those similar
to the Moon or to Mars. Hence those cruel operations essentially
yield
rather poor results with respect to adaptational universalism;
the strongest opposition, however, comes from the very concept
of a "human degeneralization", i.e., the creation of
various types of humans, more or less similar to the various kinds
of ants. Maybe these analogies did not come to the mind of the
planners of this projects, but they impose themselves even on
the unbiased. One can hibernate without osmotic pumps, and the
cosmonaut could as well be equipped with a set of microdevices
(automatic or operated by himself) for the injection of the corresponding
preparations into his organism. Just that cyborgian absence of
a mouth seems to me more like an effect for the broad public rather
than for the biology experts. I loyally admit that in the subject
of this or similar reconstructions it is easier to resort to commonplace
about their future necessity than to propose engineering improvements
which are at least convincing, however technologically unreal
they might seem by today's measures. For the time being industrial
chemistry is hopelessly lagging behind the biochemistry of the
organisms, and molecular engineering together with its information-technological
applications is still in its infancy compared to molecular technology
of the organisms. However these means to which Evolution turned
- so to speak - "in desperation" rather than consciously,
by objective conditions limited to "cold technology"
and to a very narrow choice of elements (practically - only carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen, phosphor, and traces of iron,
cobalt, and other metals), cannot represent the highest achievement
in the engineering of homeostates on a cosmic scale. If synthetic
chemistry, information theory, and general system theory make
further progress, than the human body in such a world will turn
out to be its least perfect element. Human knowledge will outweigh
biological knowledge, accumulated in living organisms. Plans which
today are seen as a mockery of the perfection of evolutionary
solutions will then be realized.
Since the human reconstruction seems to us something monstrous, we are inclined to conclude that the techniques applied to this end must be monstrous as well. Brain surgery, "in-vitro embryos, coming along under genetic engineering control" - those are the images which SF literature confronts us with in this field. Meanwhile, the actions taken may be totally unrecognized. For a couple of years, computers - only a few, for the time being - have been working in the U.S. which are programmed for marriage-broking. A "machine matchmaker" chooses the couples which fit best together with respect to physical and mental properties. According to the (still rather sparse) data the duration of these relationships which were formed by a machine is about two times longer than that of usual marriages. Over the last few years, the average age of the partners in a marriage has been decreasing, but marriages are divorced within 5 years in 50% of the cases, such that there are a lot of divorced twens and children without normal parental care. No replacement for parental upbringing has been invented yet, since this is not merely a question of financial means to support the corresponding institutions (day-nurseries); there is no substitution for parental feelings, and their early and lasting absence does not only cause negative childhood experiences, but the formation of possibly irreversible defects in the field of the so called higher sensitivity. This is the current situation. People form pairs in random ways, which one could call "Brownian" - for they join together after a number of brief contacts, when they finally meet the "right" partner, which is seemingly confirmed by mutual attraction. However, this realization really is rather accidental (since is turns out to be erroneous in 50% of all cases). "Machine matchmakers" will change that state of affairs. Appropriate investigations equip the machine with knowledge about the psychosomatic properties of the candidates, after which this machine will choose pairs which fit together optimally. The machine does not remove the freedom of choice, since it does not point out only one single candidate. Acting probabilistically, it suggests a choice from a selected group within a certain reliability interval, where the machine can assemble such groups choosing from m i l l i o n s of people, whereas the individual, acting traditionally, by "random methods", will be able to meet a few hundred people at most during his whole life. In this way the machine realizes the old myth of men and women who were meant for each other, but looking for the other in vain. Now it is important that society becomes permanently aware of this fact. Of course, these are only rational arguments. The machine broadens the range of choice , but it does so indirectly, over the individual's head, taking away the right to mistakes and suffering, and all the imperfections of living together, where someone might actually yearn for such coincidences, or at least claim for himself the right to risks. Although there is a general conviction that one enters into marriage in order to remain within, somebody might actually prefer to experience love adventures with carelessly chosen partners, even with an unhappy end, over a "long and happy" life as a harmonic couple. Nevertheless, on average the advantages of forming marriages from a position of "best knowledge" which the machine has at its disposal, by far outweigh the disadvantages, such that similar techniques have considerable chances of wide acceptance. If it became a cultural norm, then marriages the "machine matchmaker" had advised against could become a kind of forbidden, tempting fruit, and society would surround them with an aura similar to that which in the past accompanied e.g. misalliances. It could eventually be possible that such an "act of desperation" would be seen as an "expression of exceptional courage", as a "challenge to danger", in certain circles.
Those "machine matchmakers" may have very serious
consequences for our species. When the personal genotypic repertory
is deciphered and stored in the machine's memory, together with
the established "psychosomatic personality profiles",
the task of the matchmaker will be to make a choice which not
only fits a person to another, but also one genotype to another.
Thus there will be a two-step selection. First the machine separates
classes of partners which correspond psychosomatically, and thereafter
it subjects them to a second-level sifting, rejecting those candidates
for which there is a considerable probability of producing children
which are unwanted in some respect. For example crippled children
- which we accept without resistance, or children with low intelligence
or personality disorders - which already raises some reservations,
at least today. Proceeding in this way seems desirable - as a
stabilization and protection of the genetic make-up of the species
- especially in an epoch which increases the concentration of
mutagenic substances in the civilizational environment. From the
stabilization of the genotype of the population it is only a small
step to the control of its further development. In this way we
enter the field of a planned control which represents a fluid
transition to a controlled evolution of the species. Because fitting
genotype to genotype means controlling the evolution of the species.
This sort of technique appears to be the least drastic of the
possible ones, since it is in principle invisible, but because
of that it creates a delicate moral problem. According to the
directives of our culture, society should be informed about all
important changes - as given (let's say) by a "thousand-year
plan of autoevolution". To give the information without delivering
arguments, however, is to impose a plan without discussing the
necessity of its realization. Actually, though, these arguments
will only be understood by those who possess comprehensive knowledge
of medicine, evolution theory, anthropology and population genetics.
Another feature of such a technique is that some changes in certain
properties of the organism might be more difficult to achieve
than others. It would be relatively easy, e.g., to increase the
occurrence of high intelligence which represents a natural, though
not as common as desirable, property of the species. This would
have a tremendous significance in the epoch of intellectual competition
between humans and machines. The most difficult thing to achieve
- by means of the demonstrated method -, on the other hand, would
be a deep change in the structure of the organism. What kind of
changes might be concerned? According to several researchers (like
Dart, for example), we are "hereditarily handicapped",
or rather characterized by an asymmetry in our tendency to "good"
or "bad" by the fact that our ancestors have practiced
cannibalism for three fourths of a million years, not in the face
of death from starvation (as "normal" predators do),
but as a rule. This has been known for a rather long time, but
currently this cannibalism is regarded as a creative factor of
anthropogenesis, for which the explanation is that herbivorism
does not maximize "reason", since bananas do not force
their gatherers to the development of tactics entailing the instantaneous
assessment of a situation, nor the development of strategies for
approach, fight and pursuit. Therefore the anthropoids sort of
stopped in their development, whereas the primeval man made the
fastest progress because he hunted for those who equaled his own
astuteness. Owing to this it came to a most radical sifting out
of the "not very bright", because the mentally limited
herbivore has to fast from time to time in the worst case, whereas
the not sufficiently clever hunter of his own kind has to die
soon. Hence the "cannibalistic invention" had to be
an accelerator of mental progress, in the sense that struggle
within the species ensures the skill to survive of only those
who possess the most effective mind, a mind that realizes a universal
transfer of life experiences to new situations. By the way, the
australopithecus which we are talking about here was an omnivore;
somehow the osteodontoceratic culture preceded the stone age,
because the first cudgel, which was produced accidentally - by
gnawing - was a long bone, hence his first vessels and battleclubs
where sculls and bones, and the smell of blood accompanied the
formation of the first rituals. This does not imply that we have
inherited any "archetypes of a criminal character" from
our ancestors, since no non-instinctive, ready knowledge can be
inherited, which would direct us to certain activities, and so
one can only assume that the human brain and body were formed
in a situation of permanent struggle. Another intriguing thing
is the "asymmetry" of the cultural history, where good
intentions quite regularly turned into bad ones, but the opposite
metamorphosis somehow did not take place, and in one of the religions
which rule to the present day, blood still plays an important
role - in the doctrine of transubstantiation. If similar hypotheses
do have a factual background and the depths of our brains were
formed under the influence of the events of those hundreds of
thousands of years, then a certain melioration of the species
- in the area of that so called "asymmetry" - would
really be desirable. Today, of course, we neither know if
one should do this, nor do we know how to do it; "matrimonial
machines" might lead to the desired state only after many
thousand years, since they can only maximize the natural pace
of evolution, which is very slow. In the face of such revolutionary
plans one may be forced to resort to "accelerated" techniques.
In any case about the resistance which the perspective of autoevolutionary
changes causes in us decide not only their extent, but also how
fluid the transition towards them will be. "Tailoring of
brains and bodies" might repulse, however "machine assisted
marriage guidance" appears to be a rather innocent procedure
- nevertheless these are only paths of different length which
can lead to analogous results.
Extrasensory phenomena
...02/09/98, to be continued...